Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Knife Control! Yep, Next After Gun Control!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    Gravity is also settled science. Evolution, too.

    "Settled" doesn't mean that we don't continue to study phenomena. How do you not know that science is a constant pursuit of knowledge and never ends?



    Yup, Ted Cruz has no anti-climate change agenda.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politi...ilks-brothers/
    I find it amusing that y'all are trying to change the focus of the thread to climate change. It's almost like you'd rather not admit that the OP has a valid point which you'd rather not talk about.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      I find it amusing that y'all are trying to change the focus of the thread to climate change. It's almost like you'd rather not admit that the OP has a valid point which you'd rather not talk about.
      I talked about the OP plenty. Cow Poke said we should research the whackos who kill people with guns, failing to realize that gun nuts in congress shut that research down. His response was "Politics."

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by whag View Post
        I talked about the OP plenty. Cow Poke said we should research the whackos who kill people with guns, failing to realize that gun nuts in congress shut that research down. His response was "Politics."
        And What fails to understand is that studies can be done WITHOUT Congress. Whag, do you POOP without congressional approval?
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          I find it amusing that y'all are trying to change the focus of the thread to climate change. It's almost like you'd rather not admit that the OP has a valid point which you'd rather not talk about.
          No one's trying to change the focus of the thread and, as far as thread-drift goes, this tangent doesn't even make it to the average.

          My question about the "base bill" you were talking about is still sitting around, if you're super-interested in getting back on topic, tho.
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by whag View Post
            I talked about the OP plenty. Cow Poke said we should research the whackos who kill people with guns, failing to realize that gun nuts in congress shut that research down. His response was "Politics."
            I think that studying gun violence is legitimate but I think the problem has been the amount of pure garbage research that has been produced by the anti-Second Amendment crowd that was designed to push forth an agenda rather than look at the issue has made people leery. Now before Sam et al. start spinning on their eyebrows I'll be delighted to point out specific examples of exactly this sort of thing.

            Arthur L. Kellermann, who has won many honors and awards and has served as Director of the RAND Institute of Health and founded the department of emergency medicine at Emory University, concocted "research" that showed that a homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder. This statistic immediately became etched in stone by the left and was uncritically repeated by politicians and the press for several years. There of course was one problem with his statistic, it was the result of incredibly shoddy to the point of dishonesty, methodology. In fact Kellermann himself has been forced to downgrade his original estimate to "2.7 times" (a figure nearly 1/16th the original figure), but he still persists in using discredited methodology.

            The biggest but not the only problem was that Kellermann only cited examples of where an intruder was shot and killed and, in his own words, did "not include cases which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm" and now admits that "Simply keeping a gun in the home may deter some criminals who fear confronting an armed home owner" conceding that "a gun can be used to scare away an intruder without a shot being fired."

            Further, Kellermann acknowledged that of the original 43 deaths for every intruder killed figure, 37 were suicides. While this is obviously not good while restricting the access to firearms bans could lower the rate of gun suicide deaths it would likely have no effect on the overall suicide rate since people intent on suicide just find another way (O.D., hanging, jumping…). Japan is an excellent example of this. They have a suicide rate well above average, yet private gun ownership is almost non-existent.

            The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns is the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected, not Kellermann’s burglar or rapist body count. No one suggests that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of criminal suspects killed by the police. Multiple studies show that only 0.1% (1 in 1000) of the defensive use of guns results in the death of the predator. And it should be noted that people are rarely attacked by complete strangers, usually the attackers are someone they know and that includes the people they are living with. This tends to dramatically skew the family member/intruder ratio as well.

            Finally, in a April 1994 interview with the San Francisco Examiner, Kellermann said that if his wife was attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection, indicating that even he doesn’t believe his own study.



            Another much celebrated case of fraudulent research was published in an award-winning book (recipient of Columbia University’s prestigious Bancroft Prize in American History and Diplomacy for instance) that was the most heralded anti-gun book in a decade, Michael Bellesiles’ Arming America: The Origins of the National Gun Culture stands exposed as an utter hoax. Bellesiles was an Emory professor and director of the Center for the Study of Violence and his book caused a sensation with Second Amendment opponents with its claim that gun ownership in the U.S. was "an invented tradition," but ended with its author being charged with perpetrating what the New York Times called "one of the worst academic scandals in years."

            The media went nuts over the release of the book the Chicago Tribune called it an "exciting new book … that absolutely devastates the myth of the gun in early America." The New York Times said "the evidence is overwhelming…" and the Los Angeles Times hailed the book as a "great achievement," while the Philadelphia Inquirer gushed that it was "the most critically praised book of America history in many years." The Journal of American History called the book's research "meticulous and thorough," and wrote that Bellesiles had "attacked the central myth behind the National Rifle Association's interpretation of the Second Amendment". It declared Bellesiles' evidence was so formidable that "if the subject were open to rational argument", the debate would be over.

            IOW, Bellesiles' book had reassured the liberal establishment that their belief that what they had believed about guns, what they had hoped to be true, was correct: that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right to bear arms, that individual gun rights were deemed unimportant at the time of the writing and ramification of the U.S. Constitution.

            But then things started going wrong. Seriously wrong. It turned out that Bellesiles' alleged research was based on distorted interpretations of historical records and often cited evidence that appears to have been completely fabricated. Scholars who examined his data couldn't substantiate his claims that the 11,000-plus probate records from 40 counties in Colonial America showed fewer than 7% actually owned working guns. Academics trying to corroborate Arming America’s sensational findings were stunned by "an astonishing number of serious errors," and found his estimates to be way off at best. Further, Bellesiles assured would-be replicators of his research that for all but a few of the 40 counties he examined, he did his probate research via microfilm at the Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia. The problem is that the archives in East Point have no such records.

            Even worse, Bellesiles repeatedly claimed that he had managed to obtain detailed probate records from 1849 through 1859 from the San Francisco Superior Court. The problem is that all the probate data from that decade had been destroyed in the great earthquake of 1906. Bellesiles couldn’t have examined them because that information was destroyed decades before he was even born! When confronted with this inconvenient fact, Bellesiles suddenly recollected that it was from one of the other two Bay area libraries that he got the records from. But as the New York Times reported, "[The San Francisco records] were not available in two other Bay area libraries either."

            Bellesiles then claimed that it was actually at the Contra Costa County Historical Society that he found them. Unfortunately for him, the Contra Costa facility not only said that it didn’t have any such records, but also said that it had gone back through all its logs and didn’t even have a record of Bellesiles having ever visited its collection until recently -- long after Bellesiles published his book.

            In the end Bellesiles' awards were rescinded, his publisher did not renew his contract, the National Endowment for the Humanities withdrew its name from a fellowship that the Newberry Library had granted him and Bellesiles resigned his position at Emory. The author of the piece in the Journal of American History that had so enthusiastically praised Bellesiles wrote "It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records. He's betrayed us. He's betrayed the cause. It's 100 percent clear that the guy is a liar and a disgrace to my profession. He's breached that trust."


            Those are two of the more notorious instances. One of such sloppiness that one can reasonably ask if it was deliberate and one of unquestionable fraud and deceit. Both were touted as "scripture" by the left even though problems were apparent from the very start. And to be clear there are many other examples that I could cite.

            For instance, in 1989, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a study that erroneously claimed that, "firearms are responsible for the deaths of 45,000 infants, children and adolescents per year." What was the problem with that claim? The 45,000 figure was much larger than the total number of gun deaths for all ages combined.

            And then there was the following quote which appeared in a reputable academic journal: “Every year since 1950, the number of American children gunned down has doubled.” Research is not even needed to disprove this outrageous claim. All that is needed is simple, basic math. If there had been just 2 children gunned down in America in 1950, then doubling that number every year would have meant that, by 1980, there would have been 1,000,000,000 (one BILLION) American children gunned down. That is more than 4 times the TOTAL population of the U.S. at that time. And by 1995, when the claim was published, 16,384,000,000,000 (over 16 TRILLION) children were being gunned down that year. This statistic was declared the "worst social statistic ever" by Joel Best author of Damned Lies and Statistics.

            Now, I'm sure there have been garbage studies produced by the pro-Second Amendment crowd but I seriously doubt that they were scooped up and uncritically parroted uncritically by the media for years often even after they were discredited.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              I think that studying gun violence is legitimate but I think the problem has been the amount of pure garbage research that has been produced by the anti-Second Amendment crowd ...
              And, therein lies the rub. WHO is doing the study, how much will it cost -- is this like the Obamacare website thing, where boatloads of money were given to Obama's buddies who proved totally incompetent? It's "politics" - neither side trusts the other, and, in many cases, with good reason.

              Excellent post their, Rouge!
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I think that studying gun violence is legitimate but I think the problem has been the amount of pure garbage research that has been produced by the anti-Second Amendment crowd that was designed to push forth an agenda rather than look at the issue has made people leery. Now before Sam et al. start spinning on their eyebrows I'll be delighted to point out specific examples of exactly this sort of thing.

                Arthur L. Kellermann, who has won many honors and awards and has served as Director of the RAND Institute of Health and founded the department of emergency medicine at Emory University, concocted "research" that showed that a homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder. This statistic immediately became etched in stone by the left and was uncritically repeated by politicians and the press for several years. There of course was one problem with his statistic, it was the result of incredibly shoddy to the point of dishonesty, methodology. In fact Kellermann himself has been forced to downgrade his original estimate to "2.7 times" (a figure nearly 1/16th the original figure), but he still persists in using discredited methodology.

                The biggest but not the only problem was that Kellermann only cited examples of where an intruder was shot and killed and, in his own words, did "not include cases which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm" and now admits that "Simply keeping a gun in the home may deter some criminals who fear confronting an armed home owner" conceding that "a gun can be used to scare away an intruder without a shot being fired."

                Further, Kellermann acknowledged that of the original 43 deaths for every intruder killed figure, 37 were suicides. While this is obviously not good while restricting the access to firearms bans could lower the rate of gun suicide deaths it would likely have no effect on the overall suicide rate since people intent on suicide just find another way (O.D., hanging, jumping…). Japan is an excellent example of this. They have a suicide rate well above average, yet private gun ownership is almost non-existent.

                The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns is the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected, not Kellermann’s burglar or rapist body count. No one suggests that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of criminal suspects killed by the police. Multiple studies show that only 0.1% (1 in 1000) of the defensive use of guns results in the death of the predator. And it should be noted that people are rarely attacked by complete strangers, usually the attackers are someone they know and that includes the people they are living with. This tends to dramatically skew the family member/intruder ratio as well.

                Finally, in a April 1994 interview with the San Francisco Examiner, Kellermann said that if his wife was attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection, indicating that even he doesn’t believe his own study.



                Another much celebrated case of fraudulent research was published in an award-winning book (recipient of Columbia University’s prestigious Bancroft Prize in American History and Diplomacy for instance) that was the most heralded anti-gun book in a decade, Michael Bellesiles’ Arming America: The Origins of the National Gun Culture stands exposed as an utter hoax. Bellesiles was an Emory professor and director of the Center for the Study of Violence and his book caused a sensation with Second Amendment opponents with its claim that gun ownership in the U.S. was "an invented tradition," but ended with its author being charged with perpetrating what the New York Times called "one of the worst academic scandals in years."

                The media went nuts over the release of the book the Chicago Tribune called it an "exciting new book … that absolutely devastates the myth of the gun in early America." The New York Times said "the evidence is overwhelming…" and the Los Angeles Times hailed the book as a "great achievement," while the Philadelphia Inquirer gushed that it was "the most critically praised book of America history in many years." The Journal of American History called the book's research "meticulous and thorough," and wrote that Bellesiles had "attacked the central myth behind the National Rifle Association's interpretation of the Second Amendment". It declared Bellesiles' evidence was so formidable that "if the subject were open to rational argument", the debate would be over.

                IOW, Bellesiles' book had reassured the liberal establishment that their belief that what they had believed about guns, what they had hoped to be true, was correct: that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right to bear arms, that individual gun rights were deemed unimportant at the time of the writing and ramification of the U.S. Constitution.

                But then things started going wrong. Seriously wrong. It turned out that Bellesiles' alleged research was based on distorted interpretations of historical records and often cited evidence that appears to have been completely fabricated. Scholars who examined his data couldn't substantiate his claims that the 11,000-plus probate records from 40 counties in Colonial America showed fewer than 7% actually owned working guns. Academics trying to corroborate Arming America’s sensational findings were stunned by "an astonishing number of serious errors," and found his estimates to be way off at best. Further, Bellesiles assured would-be replicators of his research that for all but a few of the 40 counties he examined, he did his probate research via microfilm at the Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia. The problem is that the archives in East Point have no such records.

                Even worse, Bellesiles repeatedly claimed that he had managed to obtain detailed probate records from 1849 through 1859 from the San Francisco Superior Court. The problem is that all the probate data from that decade had been destroyed in the great earthquake of 1906. Bellesiles couldn’t have examined them because that information was destroyed decades before he was even born! When confronted with this inconvenient fact, Bellesiles suddenly recollected that it was from one of the other two Bay area libraries that he got the records from. But as the New York Times reported, "[The San Francisco records] were not available in two other Bay area libraries either."

                Bellesiles then claimed that it was actually at the Contra Costa County Historical Society that he found them. Unfortunately for him, the Contra Costa facility not only said that it didn’t have any such records, but also said that it had gone back through all its logs and didn’t even have a record of Bellesiles having ever visited its collection until recently -- long after Bellesiles published his book.

                In the end Bellesiles' awards were rescinded, his publisher did not renew his contract, the National Endowment for the Humanities withdrew its name from a fellowship that the Newberry Library had granted him and Bellesiles resigned his position at Emory. The author of the piece in the Journal of American History that had so enthusiastically praised Bellesiles wrote "It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records. He's betrayed us. He's betrayed the cause. It's 100 percent clear that the guy is a liar and a disgrace to my profession. He's breached that trust."


                Those are two of the more notorious instances. One of such sloppiness that one can reasonably ask if it was deliberate and one of unquestionable fraud and deceit. Both were touted as "scripture" by the left even though problems were apparent from the very start. And to be clear there are many other examples that I could cite.

                For instance, in 1989, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a study that erroneously claimed that, "firearms are responsible for the deaths of 45,000 infants, children and adolescents per year." What was the problem with that claim? The 45,000 figure was much larger than the total number of gun deaths for all ages combined.

                And then there was the following quote which appeared in a reputable academic journal: “Every year since 1950, the number of American children gunned down has doubled.” Research is not even needed to disprove this outrageous claim. All that is needed is simple, basic math. If there had been just 2 children gunned down in America in 1950, then doubling that number every year would have meant that, by 1980, there would have been 1,000,000,000 (one BILLION) American children gunned down. That is more than 4 times the TOTAL population of the U.S. at that time. And by 1995, when the claim was published, 16,384,000,000,000 (over 16 TRILLION) children were being gunned down that year. This statistic was declared the "worst social statistic ever" by Joel Best author of Damned Lies and Statistics.

                Now, I'm sure there have been garbage studies produced by the pro-Second Amendment crowd but I seriously doubt that they were scooped up and uncritically parroted uncritically by the media for years often even after they were discredited.

                Back over at NatSci, I recall many of us acknowledging that, yes, there are bad actors on any "side" of research and, yes, one can always find some cases of bad science or outright malfeasance. We also acknowledged that there's usually a big difference between the actual studies and the media portrayal of those studies, even many years after the fact. We understood there that such things are ubiquitous and impossible to avoid completely but they in no way discredited the vast bulk of research.

                Jorge used to argue that these cases of bad science or malfeasance revealed the "true motive" of the research at large — that, because he could find examples of bad science (or outright fraud), the whole enterprise was obviously corrupt and he could dismiss it out-of-hand. He would likewise complain about popular media-based portrayals of research (e.g., transitional species) while not dealing with the research itself.

                This feels ... familiar.
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  I think that studying gun violence is legitimate but I think the problem has been the amount of pure garbage research that has been produced by the anti-Second Amendment crowd that was designed to push forth an agenda rather than look at the issue has made people leery.
                  I addressed this already in a previous post, but what do you know, Sam and Dimbulb seem to have completely overlooked it. What a surprise.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I addressed this already in a previous post, but what do you know, Sam and Dimbulb seem to have completely overlooked it. What a surprise.
                    Yeah, essentially, here's the issue - "It was what we call advocacy research,” Wheeler said. “It was research done with a preordained goal, and that goal was gun control.”

                    When research is done for the sole purpose of promoting your own cause, the opposition shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

                    It's kinda like Googling all kinds of charts and graphs - NOT in search of the truth - but in an attempt to buttress your own preconceived pinko commie leftist liberal agenda*.





                    (*yes, CP is being somewhat facetious)
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Or it's like "adjusting" historical data whenever it doesn't fit one's agenda and then declaring the issue "settled".

                      One of the biggest problems outside of the "advocacy research" favored by the left is that there's no settled methodology for studying gun violence.

                      Source: BoingBoing.net

                      ...a National Academy of Sciences panel ... reviewed a huge amount of gun violence research and presented a sort of “state-of-the-field” report summarizing what we know, what we don’t know, and why.

                      The results were less than glowing. In the executive summary, the committee wrote that, despite lots of research, it was still impossible to answer some of the most pressing questions surrounding gun violence. The paper does its best to praise researchers for the good work they have produced – this isn’t a situation where we know absolutely nothing about gun use, gun ownership, and the impact of gun laws. But the committee members I spoke with were also critical of the field, and say that the confidence politicians, lobbyists, and activists put in this research is seriously premature. Gun violence research suffers from a lack of consistently recorded data and, for that matter, a lack of data, in general. As John Pepper, associate economics professor at The University of Virginia and the study director on the 2004 report, put it, “The data are just terrible.”

                      Worse, critics say the methods used to analyze that data are also deeply flawed in many cases. What you end up with, researchers told me, is a field where key pieces of the puzzle are missing entirely and where multiple scientists are reaching wildly different conclusions from the exact same data sets. For instance, because of those differences in the definition of “defensive gun use” some researchers will tell you that Americans use a gun to defend themselves something like 1.5 million times every year. Others say it happens maybe 200,000 times annually.

                      That kind of variability does not create an environment where it is easy to craft evidence-based policy, and the situation has not improved since 2004...

                      http://boingboing.net/2013/02/26/fir...paign=ttdbmore

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Last edited by Mountain Man; 10-10-2015, 12:14 PM.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Back over at NatSci, I recall many of us acknowledging that, yes, there are bad actors on any "side" of research and, yes, one can always find some cases of bad science or outright malfeasance. We also acknowledged that there's usually a big difference between the actual studies and the media portrayal of those studies, even many years after the fact. We understood there that such things are ubiquitous and impossible to avoid completely but they in no way discredited the vast bulk of research.

                        Jorge used to argue that these cases of bad science or malfeasance revealed the "true motive" of the research at large — that, because he could find examples of bad science (or outright fraud), the whole enterprise was obviously corrupt and he could dismiss it out-of-hand. He would likewise complain about popular media-based portrayals of research (e.g., transitional species) while not dealing with the research itself.

                        This feels ... familiar.
                        My point is the level of how bad some of these reports are and how they were automatically accepted and uncritically repeated by one side even after questions concerning their validity surfaced.

                        Indeed, it is familiar

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          Back over at NatSci, I recall many of us acknowledging that, yes, there are bad actors on any "side" of research and, yes, one can always find some cases of bad science or outright malfeasance. We also acknowledged that there's usually a big difference between the actual studies and the media portrayal of those studies, even many years after the fact. We understood there that such things are ubiquitous and impossible to avoid completely but they in no way discredited the vast bulk of research.

                          Jorge used to argue that these cases of bad science or malfeasance revealed the "true motive" of the research at large — that, because he could find examples of bad science (or outright fraud), the whole enterprise was obviously corrupt and he could dismiss it out-of-hand. He would likewise complain about popular media-based portrayals of research (e.g., transitional species) while not dealing with the research itself.

                          This feels ... familiar.
                          O.K., so... what's an example of good gun violence research that you would be willing to stand behind?
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            My point is the level of how bad some of these reports are and how they were automatically accepted and uncritically repeated by one side even after questions concerning their validity surfaced.

                            Indeed, it is familiar
                            Probably not best to crow about that, given the recent history of climate-science deniers, "reparative therapy"-supporters, anti-same sex parenting provocateurs, etc. 'round here. If your point is that science gets misused on both sides so people really need to focus on the studies and do their homework, that didn't really come through in your post (see CP's and MM's reaction, there). If your point was to level an accusation against the consensus conclusions of gun violence research on the basis of some bad studies, the familiarity of the situation doesn't suit your argument well.

                            I've put three or four actual studies on this board in the last week regarding this topic and none of them have been touched. That, to me, says a whole lot more than a complaint that "the media" frequently gets the science wrong or repeats false claims ("Gun control led to the Holocaust!")
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              ...

                              Excellent post their, Rouge!
                              What color?

                              My guess is a pinkish blush.



                              Farding (not a misspelling) instead of logic is one accurate descriptor of the anti-gun nuts.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                Probably not best to crow about that, given the recent history of climate-science deniers, "reparative therapy"-supporters, anti-same sex parenting provocateurs, etc. 'round here. If your point is that science gets misused on both sides so people really need to focus on the studies and do their homework, that didn't really come through in your post (see CP's and MM's reaction, there). If your point was to level an accusation against the consensus conclusions of gun violence research on the basis of some bad studies, the familiarity of the situation doesn't suit your argument well.

                                I've put three or four actual studies on this board in the last week regarding this topic and none of them have been touched. That, to me, says a whole lot more than a complaint that "the media" frequently gets the science wrong or repeats false claims ("Gun control led to the Holocaust!")
                                Superb defense there Sam. The equivalent of but... but... but someone else might have done it on a totally unrelated topic so it's okay if the anti-Second Amendment crowd does it


                                And historians legitimately argue over whether or not the Nazis might have been stopped early on if they had not succeeded in their gun grabbing policies. Personally, I doubt it. Unfortunately they and their policies were still very popular at that time in Germany.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                143 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                393 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X